Uzbekistan signals

Washington Times ^ | August 14, 2005 | Christopher Brown

[Tailgunner Joe]

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of China's statement is the phrase "terrorism, separatism and extremism." That phrase is one of the key rhetorical foundations of military cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The SCO is perhaps the most dangerous organization most Americans have never heard of. It is headquartered in Beijing and consists of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia currently enjoy observer status in preparation for full membership.

On July 5 at the annual meeting of the leaders of the member states, there was a joint statement issued that included the demand for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from SCO member nations.

That same day the United States responded by saying "our presence [in the SCO member states] . . . is determined by the terms of our bilateral agreements" -- in effect, ignoring the significance of the SCO and the joint statement signed by Mr. Karimov himself. Within 24 hours, the Uzbekistan foreign ministry reiterated that it was seriously reconsidering the presence of United States forces on Uzbek soil.

There is, of course, another part to this story. Two weeks after the riots in Uzbekistan at the end of May, Mr. Karimov visited Beijing. He left China with a series of agreements for contracts worth over $1.5 billion. Two weeks after the July statement from the Uzbekistan Foreign Ministry, the Chinese energy company Sinopec announced an additional $106 million investment in Uzbekistan. Ten days later, Uzbekistan announced the eviction of U.S. forces, which have been supporting counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. They will leave behind a completely modern base, upgraded at the cost to American taxpayers of millions of dollars, which can be used by either Russia or China.

[Fitzcarraldo]

A statement of General Patton comes to mind.

[Fitzcarraldo]

On May 18 [1954] he [Gen. Patton] noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."

[Fitzcarraldo]

May 18 [1954] correction 1945.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I'd like to see my Dad reenlist and carry out the demolition. He did that sort of thing in the Korean War.

[A. Pole]

and rescind aid.

Maybe Chinese offered more aid?

[GSlob]

Actually, it could be turned into a very good thing, if one could saddle the Chinese with all these basket cases, from "stans" to Zimbabwes - and then watch them to overextend...

[adorno]

Actually, it could be turned into a very good thing, if one could saddle the Chinese with all these basket cases, from "stans" to Zimbabwes - and then watch them to overextend...

There is no such thing as overextension when it comes to ruthless dictatorships. If you give them an inch, they'll take the mile, once they have the mile they'll take the whole country. Once they have the whole country, the citizens are trapped and it could takes ages or forever to undo the damage.

China has a huge population and they could easily become the majority in any country they conquer. They could use the land and whatever riches it brings, anywhere they can find it.

[A. Pole]

There is no such thing as overextension when it comes to ruthless dictatorships.

So is there "such thing as overextension" for the constitutional republics? Should US be managing the Central Asia?

If you give them an inch, they'll take the mile

China was present on Central Asia for several centuries. See this map of the 2nd century after Christ:

[GSlob]

There IS such a thing as overextension. Trees do not grow to the sky, and every system [including social systems] has its limitations. Ruthless dictatorships are inherently wasteful, and their own wastefulness sets their limitations relatively low. Look at the USSR for the recent example. Yes, the Chinese are smarter, with the average IQ 107 [and that's what one should in the long term be afraid of as it regards them], but even they would have their limits. So if one could drive them to those limits and then over them...

[A. Pole]

There IS such a thing as overextension. Trees do not grow to the sky, and every system [including social systems] has its limitations. Ruthless dictatorships are inherently wasteful, and their own wastefulness sets their limitations relatively low.

And one of the most ruthless (and rather efficient than wasteful) dictatorships - the German Third Reich overextended itself when it invaded Poland, France and Soviet Russia.

[adorno]

The is not doubt that a country could overextend itself. But, the point that I was trying to make was in conjunction with the other statement in my prior post: Once they have the whole country, the citizens are trapped and it could take ages or forever to undo the damage.

Yes they can overextend, but not before making life miserable for those that they have conquered and ruled over for a long time.

[Cronos]

The Han dynasty's rule over the parts west of the Gobi was tenuous at best, just an army sent to defeat the wandering tribes there and get an acknowledgement from the cheiftain of the day. Once that was done, they simply moved back. No significant tributes were given.

[GSlob]

You could find a [partial] answer to your question in Charles Murray's book "Human accomplishment". He gives examples of the Chinese attaining significant scientific and technological breakthroughs in the past (like massive Chinese oceangoing exploratory fleets a century before Columbus, or a Chinese scholar singlehandedly developing geomorphology(?) in 11th or 12th centuries). In the past they did not choose to actively build up on such achievements, probably due to historical and social reasons. I'm afraid this is changing now.